Posted on 04/23/2018 7:34:12 PM PDT by BBell
I will be honest, I don't quite understand net neutrality. Every time I think I do I find out I don't.
A might confused myself.
We have to regulate it to make it free.
“On December 14, the FCC voted in a 3-2 decision to repeal the net neutrality legislation put in place by the Obama administration.”
That’s all you need to know. Anything and everything implemented by Klownie the Kenyan is bad. So anything reversed is good for America, the world and the universe.
As I understand it, Net Neutrality is all about forced subsidy. Net Neutrality fans want for others to pay for their streaming. John Oliver and Al Franken are for Net Neutrality. That should tell us something.
It's all about people wanting others to pay for their access...gimme, gimme, gimme, or as James Hetfield would say...
That’s all you need to know. Anything and everything implemented by Klownie the Kenyan is bad. So anything reversed is good for America, the world and the universe.
Thank Yew.........;)
“we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it ”
Federal legislation is always named the opposite of what it does. The Affordable Care Act, for instance.
“Net neutrality” is “The Fairness Doctrine” recycled to the Interwebls.
Obama the camel’s nose under the tent.
I understand that gubmint screws up pretty much anything it touches.
It has nothing to do w internet speed.
It sets up a regulatory body which will eventually control the message.
The fake news battle is exactly what they had in mind.
Except they want prison time for non-correct news
if Goggle, Facebook, Twitter etc are for it, then I’m against it...
Don’t feel bad, most people don’t understand it including me, that’s what makes it so ripe for mischief by politicians.
Look at it this way. We didn’t have it before Obama and we were doing fine. Just the government sticking its nose in another business for no reason.
Cats have a simple way of understanding complex issues.
Glad to see another Obama idea ........kicked to the roadside.
I wasn’t for NN when it was proposed (I prefer free market) and I’m glad to see this being
dismissed.
Let the market take it’s natural course. Let the Gov., Isp’s,, and others go back to respecting the privacy of the paying public. Liberals will have to find another scheme to build files on people private information.
Please enough with the Boo-hooing of slow access to medical records and the such. The Cloud and AI with personal information is a recipe for disaster, unless of Course.....YOUR with HER (Agenda).
Winning.
I stopped trying to understand it. If it effects me directly, that’s when I will deal with it. My internet footprint is very small compared to most people’s. I don’t do Facebook or Twitter, so we’ll see what does or does not happen.
I’m not going to fret about it.
I think some people were going nuts after Pres. Trump authorized a change. Most were upset simply because the ‘change’ was something recent, implemented by their idol, Obama. Around 2009, I think. So ‘obviously’ if Trump was removing that change, it has to be bad, if not downright horrible.
“Net neutrality?” It’s more like “net neutering.”
It essentially gives the “content providers” like google, streaming services, amazon, etc, tie up limited bandwidth and create bottlenecks that will slow access by smaller entities.
It makes the carriers who maintain the physical infrastructure subservient to the online behemoths and bars them from charging more for the extra data they dump into the pipeline, and removes any incentive to build more bandwidth.
It’s anti-market and will create a shortage.
For me, it was a two level approach to understanding it.
Step One: Who is for it, and who is against it? On nearly any issue, when all the leftists line up on one side, it is uniformly going to be a bad proposition for the individual, the country, and the world.
Step Two: Who benefits and who doesn’t? Leftists like to say the “Working Man” benefits from Net Neutrality. When I hear that, I run the other way. Fast. In. this case, it is Thomas Sowell’s admonition to avoid one stage thinking. When the surface is scratched and you look at the next level, it boils down to this: If a carrier cannot differentiate themselves from their competition by increasing their network infrastructure and capability because their competition can use their infrastructure, then WHY WOULD THEY IMPROVE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE? The simple answer is...they won’t. And if they don’t...who will?
You have one guess to figure out who is going to do it if the carriers don’t. And that entity that will do it is well known for waste, corruption, poor service, and inefficiency. You get one more guess to figure out where that entity will get their money from, and who decides what is done with it.
The obverse side of it is that if a carrier CAN get a business advantage by improving their infrastructure, then they will, and a rising tide will lift all boats. It is competition that does that. And they do that by improving their infrastructure so they can reach more customers with cell service and internet access by extending it in those directions. People who had poor access to cell service and the internet will be brought on board, because someone can make money doing it.
Thanks for the reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.